How the craziest f#@!ing “theory of everything” got published and promoted – UPDATED

A faculty member at a prominent research university has published a grandiose …

Physicists have been working for decades on a "theory of everything," one that unites quantum mechanics and relativity. Apparently, they were being too modest. Yesterday saw publication of a press release claiming a biologist had just published a theory accounting for all of that—and handling the origin of life and the creation of the Moon in the bargain. Better yet, no math!

Where did such a crazy theory originate? In the mind of a biologist at a respected research institution, Case Western Reserve University Medical School. Amazingly, he managed to get his ideas published, then amplified by an official press release. At least two sites with poor editorial control then reposted the press release—verbatim—as a news story.

Gyres all the way down

The theory in question springs from the brain of one Erik Andrulis, a CWRU faculty member who has a number of earlier papers on fairly standard biochemistry. The new paper was accepted by an open access journal called Life, meaning that you can freely download a copy of its 105 pages if you're so inclined. Apparently, the journal is peer-reviewed, which is a bit of a surprise; even accepting that the paper makes a purely theoretical proposal, it is nothing like science as I've ever seen it practiced.

The basic idea is that everything, from subatomic particles to living systems, is based on helical systems the author calls "gyres," which transform matter, energy, and information. These transformations then determine the properties of various natural systems, living and otherwise. What are these gyres? It's really hard to say; even Andrulis admits that they're just "a straightforward and non-mathematical core model" (although he seems to think that's a good thing). Just about everything can be derived from this core model; the author cites "major phenomena including, but not limited to, quantum gravity, phase transitions of water, why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), homochirality of sugars and amino acids, homeoviscous adaptation, triplet code, and DNA mutations."

He's serious about the "not limited to" part; one of the sections describes how gyres could cause the Moon to form.

Is this a viable theory of everything? The word "boson," the particle that carries forces, isn't in the text at all. "Quark" appears once—in the title of one of the 800 references. The only subatomic particle Andrulis describes is the electron; he skips from there straight up to oxygen. Enormous gaps exist everywhere one looks.

The theory is supposed to be testable, but the word "test" only shows up in the text twice. In both cases, Andrulis simply claims his theory is testable in specific areas of study. He does not indicate what those tests might be, nor what results would be predicted based on his gyres.

I could easily go into more specifics (very easily—I've got lots of notes), but it's clear that there's nothing in the paper that much resembles science. (Though there's always the chance that I'm just not smart enough to see the model's brilliance.)

Responsibility

How in the world did this get into a peer-reviewed journal? It's not clear. Life is tiny, publishing a single issue with a handful of papers in each of its two years of existence. Many of these papers seem highly speculative, so this paper isn't completely out of line. But it should be clear to just about anyone that there's no clear relationship between this proposed model and reality, something that is fundamental to science. It's hard to imagine why Life's reviewers decided it should pass peer review.

Peer review isn't meant as a way to censor unpopular or radically new ideas. It is meant to ensure that publications meet minimal scientific standards (how minimal will depend on the journal), and it imparts a level of credibility to anything that passes review. As far as I can determine, this paper doesn't meet even minimal scientific standards. By giving it the credibility of having been peer-reviewed anyway, the reviewers arguably failed in their duty.

The paper would almost certainly have languished in obscurity were it not for the fact that the press office at the Case Western chose to publicize it with a press release that repeated many of the paper's most outlandish claims.

A paper like this can put a university's Press Information Officer (PIO) in a tough position. According to a PIO at a major university (who asked to speak without attribution because he works in the field), a PIO can typically recognize when something is off on the fringes of science, and they don't want to promote a story that will damage their institution's credibility.

"We do try to avoid doing stories that we feel could backfire on the institution, but it's not always up to the PIO to say no to a paper that is appearing in a peer-reviewed journal," the PIO told Ars. "Note that she [the Case Western PIO] made the point about peer-review explicitly in the release—that’s a pretty telling detail."

PIOs are put in these awkward situations all the time. Despite the fact that we've discovered numerous fossils of feathered dinosaurs, some researchers still discount the connections between the two. Every few years, one of them gets a new publication, which is almost invariably followed by a press release. That said, support by a press office isn't uniform; Berkeley's biology news aggregator doesn't seem to have anything from Peter Duesberg, a biologist on the faculty there who has views that are quite controversial.

(We contacted Case Western's press office but, as of press time, had not received a reply.)

If the responsibility of press officers can be a bit complicated, the responsibility of news sites isn't. PhysOrg and Science Daily both did what they always do and ran the press release, unedited, as if it were their own original news content. ScienceDaily even added itself as the dateline source.

This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if it weren't for the fact that, in a large number of contexts, these two sites are treated as credible sources of scientific information. Items posted there make frequent appearances on social news sites, and a number of people I've talked to have been shocked to discover that the majority of the sites' content is nothing more than rebranded press releases.

Ultimately, the job of editing and of peer review is to help ensure that only scientifically valid data and ideas end up in the literature. The job of the press should be to ensure that the public only receives reports of equal quality (or better, since the press can act as an additional layer of filtering). Unfortunately, with the rise of the press release, and of aggregators that disguise press releases as news content, the public is not being well served in this regard.

Update: Over the weekend, Case Western Reserve removed the press release from its site, although it remains up at the science PR aggregator Eurekalert. In response, ScienceDaily has also removed its version of the press release (the link above now redirects to the site's front page). The reposted press release is still hosted by PhysOrg.

Oh, hey, gobipie...not to put you on the clock or anything here, but I turn into a pumpkin in about 15 minutes. Whatever moral victory you need to win, you have about that long to achieve it. Then I this file transfer is done, and I am going home to my wife.

Here's a perfect example of how you take things out of context (which by the way you accused me of doing earlier):

"don't make them in a Nobel Intent thread on Ars Technica"

My existence in this thread was never about that. I never posted in this thread anything at all about Nobel Intent, I don't even have the word "Nobel" in any of my comments and I have no opinion on the matter.

My only existence in this thread was to write "He's arguing for the Scientific Method" or something like that until you showed up.

Nobel Intent is the name of the science section of Ars Tehcnica. If it is a science article, then it is in the Nobel Intent section or Ars Technica.

5 years my ass.

You can't be this blind. Obviously, I know this was filed under Nobel Intent; I can see it on the banner of the article. What I'm saying is that my original intent in this thread was never to write an opinion about the article and back it up with evidence. What you said earlier was "don't make [your opinions] in a Nobel Intent thread" and I never did. I wrote a correction to someone else about something someone had said that I thought had been misinterpreted. It might have been wrong, but it was never a personal opinion of mine.

Oh, hey, gobipie...not to put you on the clock or anything here, but I turn into a pumpkin in about 15 minutes. Whatever moral victory you need to win, you have about that long to achieve it. Then I this file transfer is done, and I am going home to my wife.

Unfortunately, even after I become a pumpkin, I don't have a wife to go home to.

In fact, I'm likely about a third your age.And yes, I have been on Ars Technica for about five years. I remember reading Jacqui's little white macbook review in like 2008. You don't need to believe me, but whatever. I don't see how "how long I've been here" even matters at all. I just wrote that because I thought you seemed to be introducing me to Ars Technica as some elitist board full of smarty pants.

Let's pretend you post this: "I think Anonymous shouldn't hack; it's illegal and wrong. I agree with Anonymous's beliefs but the way they go about achieving them, through hacking, is ridiculous. You can petition for things through campaigns or whatever you want but breaking the law just to fix what you perceive to be as another person breaking the law is hypocritical," or something like that.

On an article where Anonymous is reported hacking into, oh, one of their of victims.

Give me some evidence I should need to back that with.

How is it illegal? Is it illegal in all jurisdictions? What if the individual anons are located in a non-extradition country? Where are you getting your basis for morality from? Who is determining "right" versus "wrong?" Why is that individual or organisation the ultimate moral arbiter? Why is it okay for some people to break laws and not others? Should we neglect social/justice issues? When all other methods have failed, is breaking the law not justified?

I could go on for hours/ If Ars Technica has taught me one thing, it has taught me that every opinion can be attacked from about 30 different angles. Nearly every argument has logical fallacies in it. And it is only through diligence and patience can we work an idea down to its core elements and determine the basic underlying assumptions that underpin the entire stack of logic.

Once you have found those basic assumptions, you either prove them valid or invalid. Then you move up one layer and see if the logic holds. Then up the next, and so on.

"Anonymous is wrong for using illegal methods to hack" has all sorts of attack surface.

You can't be this blind. Obviously, I know this was filed under Nobel Intent; I can see it on the banner of the article. What I'm saying is that my original intent in this thread was never to write an opinion about the article and back it up with evidence. What you said earlier was "don't make [your opinions] in a Nobel Intent thread" and I never did. I wrote a correction to someone else about something someone had said that I thought had been misinterpreted. It might have been wrong, but it was never a personal opinion of mine.

Listen; a Nobel Intent thread attracts a certain kind of person. Logical. Methodical. Rational to a fault. Your opinions don't have to be about the article itself for them to be challenged. You are posting evidenceless opinions in the very heart of the storm here. Right smack dab in the middle of a great big pile of semantic and pedantic science nerds.

You saw a great big wasps nest on the internet and decided "hey, I should go stick my dick in that thing."

Now you’re Aaron Barring when it goes the way you didn’t expect. :shock:

Let's pretend you post this: "I think Anonymous shouldn't hack; it's illegal and wrong. I agree with Anonymous's beliefs but the way they go about achieving them, through hacking, is ridiculous. You can petition for things through campaigns or whatever you want but breaking the law just to fix what you perceive to be as another person breaking the law is hypocritical," or something like that.

On an article where Anonymous is reported hacking into, oh, one of their of victims.

Give me some evidence I should need to back that with.

How is it illegal? Is it illegal in all jurisdictions? What if the individual anons are located in a non-extradition country? Where are you getting your basis for morality from? Who is determining "right" versus "wrong?" Why is that individual or organisation the ultimate moral arbiter? Why is it okay for some people to break laws and not others? Should we neglect social/justice issues? When all other methods have failed, is breaking the law not justified?

I could go on for hours/ If Ars Technica has taught me one thing, it has taught me that every opinion can be attacked from about 30 different angles. Nearly every argument has logical fallacies in it. And it is only through diligence and patience can we work an idea down to its core elements and determine the basic underlying assumptions that underpin the entire stack of logic.

Once you have found those basic assumptions, you either prove them valid or invalid. Then you move up one layer and see if the logic holds. Then up the next, and so on.

"Anonymous is wrong for using illegal methods to hack" has all sorts of attack surface.

I’m sorry that bothers you, but, well…

…life sucks and then some fish eat you.

According to this line of thinking, most simple opinions ever posted on Ars Technica have been unsupported to this extent. If that's the case, then I'm fine with it.

Unfortunately, even after I become a pumpkin, I don't have a wife to go home to.

In fact, I'm likely about a third your age.And yes, I have been on Ars Technica for about five years. I remember reading Jacqui's little white macbook review in like 2008. You don't need to believe me, but whatever. I don't see how "how long I've been here" even matters at all. I just wrote that because I thought you seemed to be introducing me to Ars Technica as some elitist board full of smarty pants.

How long you've been here matters a great deal. A complete noob wouldn't know the territory. Couldn't be expected to know the ins and outs. A veteran lurker would. You claim to be immersed in the culture, and yet you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding.

You can't be this blind. Obviously, I know this was filed under Nobel Intent; I can see it on the banner of the article. What I'm saying is that my original intent in this thread was never to write an opinion about the article and back it up with evidence. What you said earlier was "don't make [your opinions] in a Nobel Intent thread" and I never did. I wrote a correction to someone else about something someone had said that I thought had been misinterpreted. It might have been wrong, but it was never a personal opinion of mine.

Listen; a Nobel Intent thread attracts a certain kind of person. Logical. Methodical. Rational to a fault. Your opinions don't have to be about the article itself for them to be challenged. You are posting evidenceless opinions in the very heart of the storm here. Right smack dab in the middle of a great big pile of semantic and pedantic science nerds.

You saw a great big wasps nest on the internet and decided "hey, I should go stick my dick in that thing."

Now you’re Aaron Barring when it goes the way you didn’t expect. :shock:

What big pile of nerds... what storm?

There have been a total of two people responding to me.I can afford to be stung by two wasps.

According to this line of thinking, most simple opinions ever posted on Ars Technica have been unsupported to this extent. If that's the case, then I'm fine with it.

Most "simple opinions" on Ars Technica – but most especially in Nobel intent - are viciously and vociferously challenged resulting in multi-page threads. Which you should know, with your 5 years of experience.

Unfortunately, even after I become a pumpkin, I don't have a wife to go home to.

In fact, I'm likely about a third your age.And yes, I have been on Ars Technica for about five years. I remember reading Jacqui's little white macbook review in like 2008. You don't need to believe me, but whatever. I don't see how "how long I've been here" even matters at all. I just wrote that because I thought you seemed to be introducing me to Ars Technica as some elitist board full of smarty pants.

How long you've been here matters a great deal. A complete noob wouldn't know the territory. Couldn't be expected to know the ins and outs. A veteran lurker would. You claim to be immersed in the culture, and yet you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding.

According to this line of thinking, most simple opinions ever posted on Ars Technica have been unsupported to this extent. If that's the case, then I'm fine with it.

Most "simple opinions" on Ars Technica – but most especially in Nobel intent - are viciously and vociferously challenged resulting in multi-page threads. Which you should know, with your 5 years of experience.

There have been a total of two people responding to me.I can afford to be stung by two wasps.

There is no need for anyone else to have challenged you when two already have. Indeed, normally it would have been left at a snide comment, but I was exceedingly bored. Had you decided to make a real issue out of it and really put your angry pants on, I promise you that it would go on, and on and on. 15 pages is not unheard of, with dozens of Arsians taking up the baton.

In this case, I've been going hard, so there's no need.

Actually, I am stunned that nobody has started up arguing with me just for kicks. (I left more than enough openings!) Alas, it is Friday night. They may actually have better things to do. Still, I have yet to see a Nobel Intent thread go by without at least one idiot making his opinion known with a huge attack surface. And every single time someone rips it apart.

If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else. Not a single doubt in my mind.

There have been a total of two people responding to me.I can afford to be stung by two wasps.

There is no need for anyone else to have challenged you when two already have. Indeed, normally it would have been left at a snide comment, but I was exceedingly bored. Had you decided to make a real issue out of it and really put your angry pants on, I promise you that it would go on, and on and on. 15 pages is not unheard of, with dozens of Arsians taking up the baton.

In this case, I've been going hard, so there's no need.

Actually, I am stunned that nobody has started up arguing with me just for kicks. (I left more than enough openings!) Alas, it is Friday night. They may actually have better things to do. Still, I have yet to see a Nobel Intent thread go by without at least one idiot making his opinion known with a huge attack surface. And every single time someone rips it apart.

If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else. Not a single doubt in my mind.

There was no "great big pile of nerds" and no storm.There's no wasp nest.

↓ Moderation: Did you really think hijacking the thread like that was a good idea? Do it again, you'll get a vacation.

gobipie wrote:

There was no "great big pile of nerds" and no storm.There's no wasp nest.

You are an absolute literalist, aren't you? Yes, there is a great big pile of nerds. The regulars of Nobel Intent. Including such fine dog-posting chaps as dlux. Next time, try posting an "opinion" about evolution, or about climate change. Or an "opinion" about cell phones causing cancer.

That is a wasp’s nest full of people who love to argue. And for every opinion you can imagine there is at least a pair of nerds willing to go 20 rounds with you. Very few other places on the internet can you find that. And very few places can you find ones who will put the time and research into their posts.

I am going to end my stay in this thread by telling you one more time to go and read all 16 pages of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1165407

This is what Nobel Intent is. This is what the Ars community is. This is the wasp’s nest, and it is one of the best examples of what happens when you…

…just voice your opinion.

You won't read it, of course. But that is your loss. I suppose it will never matter to you; you just skim everything anyways. Substance obviously isn't a concern. Sad.

↓ Moderation: Did you really think hijacking the thread like that was a good idea? Do it again, you'll get a vacation.

Astlor wrote:

gobipie wrote:

There was no "great big pile of nerds" and no storm.There's no wasp nest.

You are an absolute literalist, aren't you? Yes, there is a great big pile of nerds. The regulars of Nobel Intent. Including such fine dog-posting chaps as dlux. Next time, try posting an "opinion" about evolution, or about climate change. Or an "opinion" about cell phones causing cancer.

That is a wasp’s nest full of people who love to argue. And for every opinion you can imagine there is at least a pair of nerds willing to go 20 rounds with you. Very few other places on the internet can you find that. And very few places can you find ones who will put the time and research into their posts.

I am going to end my stay in this thread by telling you one more time to go and read all 16 pages of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1165407

This is what Nobel Intent is. This is what the Ars community is. This is the wasp’s nest, and it is one of the best examples of what happens when you…

…just voice your opinion.

You won't read it, of course. But that is your loss. I suppose it will never matter to you; you just skim everything anyways. Substance obviously isn't a concern. Sad.

But I am out. Cheers.

Apologies to everyone else for the ramblings!

What kind of sane person would read all sixteen pages of that!? Well, goodbye.I guess I'm just not fit to argue with super-intelligent "Arsians" like you. I admit defeat; I can't win here.But I'll miss you. =(

What kind of sane person would read all sixteen pages of that? Well, goodbye.

The sanest of all -- those who give a damn about what the facts are and/or about what legitimate conclusions that can be drawn from them.

Definitely a contrast to the kind of bozos who are much too much taken with their own free-flowing ummmm... verbiage (and too impressed with their own penetrating intellect), to waste any precious attention on trivial matters like that -- and all the more so, if it requires them to stop spouting off for long enough to read it, let alone formulate a pertinent response.

What kind of sane person would read all sixteen pages of that? Well, goodbye.

The sanest of all -- those who give a damn about what the facts are and/or about what legitimate conclusions that can be drawn from them.

Definitely a contrast to the kind of bozos who are much too much taken with their own free-flowing ummmm... verbiage (and too impressed with their own penetrating intellect), to waste any precious attention on trivial matters like that -- and all the more so, if it requires them to stop spouting off for long enough to read it, let alone formulate a pertinent response.

Articles like this make me wonder if Ars is promoting scientism and not science. I would have to agree with the poster above, assuming that the paper in question lacks rigor, something I do not a priori postulate due to its apparent subject matter, this article certainly does; this article smacks of polemic dressed in a lab coat.

Luckily, I also read Science Daily, which will probably replace Are Technica as my main source of science news, and found this:

"Dr. Andrulis has used his theory to successfully predict and identify a hidden signature of RNA biogenesis in his laboratory at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine."

That at least gives me something to inquire about, and to determine for myself the merit of this theory. Ars offers me nothing but the the most vapid and shallow pseudo-skeptical dismissals I've seen in a long time.

So now we can go back to talking about the actual article, and maybe sharks? I think I'd like that*.

*My evidence for that statement is a self-administered questionnaire on the kinds of comment threads that I like. I had higher scores for on-topic, interesting, informative, witty and constructive threads. I know it's an imperfect measure and I don't have the raw data to hand but hopefully that will meet the exacting standards here.

Articles like this make me wonder if Ars is promoting scientism and not science. I would have to agree with the poster above, assuming that the paper in question lacks rigor, something I do not a priori postulate due to its apparent subject matter, this article certainly does; this article smacks of polemic dressed in a lab coat.

Luckily, I also read Science Daily, which will probably replace Are Technica as my main source of science news, and found this:

"Dr. Andrulis has used his theory to successfully predict and identify a hidden signature of RNA biogenesis in his laboratory at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine."

That at least gives me something to inquire about, and to determine for myself the merit of this theory. Ars offers me nothing but the the most vapid and shallow pseudo-skeptical dismissals I've seen in a long time.

You do realize that at Science Daily, all you are getting is the press release put out by the original researcher?

If he ever publishes his theory of "a hidden signature of RNA biogenesis" (do you know what that means, because I don't) we might have some science to discuss.

Theories of everything being made up of vortices go back to Anaxagoras and Democritus. But they had rather less evidence to work with. If you claim to have a fully developed theory of quantum gravity, you have to provide some mathematics at some point.

I hope someone takes this seriously enough to find out if the man's in the middle of a prolonged psychosis and in need of medical attention. Fingers crossed

One of my brother had a psychosis last summer (shit was not fun) and it actually reminded me of this.He wrote like 30 pages of calculus about the nature of time and space and reality and there was a lot of trigonometry involved.

I dunno the stats but IME it's a fairly common type of delusional state. It might be a joke, it shouldn't be too difficult for people around him to find out a little more about what's going on.

All in all I'm not too outraged or upset by the demonstration of a specific failure of peer review. What, is this going to have much impact on any third party's life or work in six months' time? But, on the off chance that this is a sign of a broken mind in need of help, I'm glad Ars published this piece.

I find this article and many of the comments hilarious. I can't believe it took me so long to figure how to post comments on Ars. So back to my point, the theory of everything, I find that the idea of it is an inherent problem, because we do not even know if relativity or quantum mechanics are true. They are just theories that so far are working for now. There is so much to learn, it is exciting, fascinating and as Ars has just shown sometimes funny.

Forget the pathetic publication. The important thing about Timmer's article is laying bare the pathetic state of science journalism. it is inexcusable, and each one of us, where ever we have connections, need to be pushing for better quality.

Yeah, i cannot believe that most comments are focusing on the paper, but that someone in the thread actually suggested that one of the press release mills (ScienceDaily) that was highlighted would be a better source of science news. The paper is a relatively minor problem here.

STOP calling it a theory. Theories have a stronger basis and can be observed through testing. Anything else is a hypothesis, a best guess explanation at some process. Until it can be tested in any way it shall be only that at its best, a smoke-induced day dream at its worst.

Articles like this make me wonder if Ars is promoting scientism and not science. I would have to agree with the poster above, assuming that the paper in question lacks rigor, something I do not a priori postulate due to its apparent subject matter, this article certainly does; this article smacks of polemic dressed in a lab coat.

Luckily, I also read Science Daily, which will probably replace Are Technica as my main source of science news, and found this:

"Dr. Andrulis has used his theory to successfully predict and identify a hidden signature of RNA biogenesis in his laboratory at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine."

That at least gives me something to inquire about, and to determine for myself the merit of this theory. Ars offers me nothing but the the most vapid and shallow pseudo-skeptical dismissals I've seen in a long time.

Agree. Articles like this just incite sexually frustrated Aspberger's types to a homo-nerd war about "who's more scientific." If you do not think that someone is being logical, then you need to engage in the hard work of logic yourself. Show us how it's done, Ars. Or else shut the fuck up.

If you do not think that someone is being logical, then you need to engage in the hard work of logic yourself. Show us how it's done, Ars. Or else shut the fuck up.

So, pointing out that a supposed theory of everything ignores most of the fundamental particles and does not contain any testable predictions is insufficient to indicate it's badly flawed? What, exactly, would be enough for you?